Literature DB >> 31363965

Whole-Body [18F]FDG-PET/MRI vs. [18F]FDG-PET/CT in Malignant Melanoma.

Dominik Berzaczy1, Barbara Fueger2, Christoph Hoeller3, Alexander R Haug4,5, Anton Staudenherz4,6, Gundula Berzaczy2, Michael Weber2, Marius E Mayerhoefer2,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of simultaneous whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to [18F]FDG PET/x-ray computed tomography (CT) for detection of distant metastatic disease in patients with malignant melanoma. PROCEDURES: We included patients with malignant melanoma who underwent a single injection [18F]FDG dual-imaging protocol that included whole-body PET/CT and subsequent whole-body PET/MRI for staging or restaging purposes in a prospective setting. Images from both modalities were analyzed by two rater teams for the presence of metastatic lesions. PET/CT-PET/MRI overall agreement as well as region-based accuracies, sensitivities (Se), and specificities (Sp) were computed.
RESULTS: Between July 2014 and December 2018, 22 patients were enrolled. Interrater agreement and overall accuracy (consensus reading) were 78.8 % (95 % CI 71-84.9) and 96.1 % (95 % CI 92.3-98) for PET/MRI and 78 % (70.2-84.3) and 97.4 % (95 % CI 93.7-98.9) for PET/CT, respectively (P = 0.42). PET/MRI reached a region-based Se of 89.1 % (95 % CI 79.4-94.5) and a Sp of 100 %, whereas PET/CT showed a region-based Se of 92.7 % (95 % CI 84-96.9) and a Sp of 100 % for the detection of metastatic disease in malignant melanoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Whole-body [18F]FDG-PET/MRI appears to be comparable to [18F]FDG-PET/CT for lesion detection in patients with malignant melanoma.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computed tomography; Distant metastasis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Melanoma; Positron emission tomography; [18F]FDG-PET

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31363965     DOI: 10.1007/s11307-019-01413-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol        ISSN: 1536-1632            Impact factor:   3.488


  1 in total

1.  Malignant melanoma S3-guideline "diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma".

Authors:  Annette Pflugfelder; Corinna Kochs; Andreas Blum; Marcus Capellaro; Christina Czeschik; Therese Dettenborn; Dorothee Dill; Edgar Dippel; Thomas Eigentler; Petra Feyer; Markus Follmann; Bernhard Frerich; Maria-Katharina Ganten; Jan Gärtner; Ralf Gutzmer; Jessica Hassel; Axel Hauschild; Peter Hohenberger; Jutta Hübner; Martin Kaatz; Ulrich R Kleeberg; Oliver Kölbl; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann; Albrecht Krause-Bergmann; Peter Kurschat; Ulrike Leiter; Hartmut Link; Carmen Loquai; Christoph Löser; Andreas Mackensen; Friedegund Meier; Peter Mohr; Matthias Möhrle; Dorothee Nashan; Sven Reske; Christian Rose; Christian Sander; Imke Satzger; Meinhard Schiller; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Gerhard Strittmatter; Cord Sunderkötter; Lothar Swoboda; Uwe Trefzer; Raymond Voltz; Dirk Vordermark; Michael Weichenthal; Andreas Werner; Simone Wesselmann; Ansgar J Weyergraf; Wolfgang Wick; Claus Garbe; Dirk Schadendorf
Journal:  J Dtsch Dermatol Ges       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.584

  1 in total
  1 in total

1.  Whole-Body MRI for the Detection of Recurrence in Melanoma Patients at High Risk of Relapse.

Authors:  Yanina J L Jansen; Inneke Willekens; Teofila Seremet; Gil Awada; Julia Katharina Schwarze; Johan De Mey; Carola Brussaard; Bart Neyns
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.